Hifi Magazines 2018

I've not read one for a long time now although used to get HFW every month and occasionally HFN and HFC.


Stopped because there was too much computer audio, too much about DACS and then when page long reviews of interconnects and mains cables came along I made my excuses and left.


I don't mind a subjective review if it is an interesting and entertaining read but they rarely are which makes them totally pointless. I know they don't get paid much for them but if you're no good at something then stop doing it.


I don't mind them reviewing the crazy money stuff. That should be the most interesting because you'd expect it to be cutting edge at that price. I can never afford it but I'd happily watch Clarkson review a supercar I could not afford because at least he is amusing. But it rarely is and the reviewer is rarely doing anything other than go through the motions. I think they work to a 6 step template:


1) Say a few complimentary words about the manufacturer, mention their other products you have heard and rate.

2) Describe the product by lifting wholesale from the manufacturer's brochure. Write as though you don't really understand or care about any of the technical stuff. But don't skimp on this bit, this section pads the review out nicely without you having to think of anything of your own to say.

3) Blab on at length about your system that you will be using the item in, paying special attention to the powercords, cables and whatever nonsense gadgets you are deploying. (This section is optional for UK reviewers but essential for American reviewers. The best Yank pundits can make this section the longest part of the review).

4) Say a few words about build quality and WAF - this is the only part of the review where you can be negative but don't overdo it and stress it is personal opinion only.

5) And so onto how it sounds! You've only got it for a short time and they are only paying you £300 for the whole review, plus you have a life and probably a proper job as well so the reality is if you can get a couple of hours with it you'd be doing well. Don't let that worry you, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king and 99% of people who read the review will never have heard or will never hear whatever it is you are reviewing so you should be safe.


You will need to name 4 or 5 artists that you had a listen with. One should be classical, one jazz and the other 3 rock/pop. Try to be elitist and pick at least a couple of artists most normal people would never have heard of, let alone heard.

If you have met the artists even better, make sure you mention that. You should mention at least a couple of instruments e.g 'Acoustic guitar really came to life' or 'Piccolo was reproduced with a superbly clean voice.' Don't be picky and even if the kit is very sub-par  you do not say so directly. Instead you say something like 'It was with simple, acoustic music where the 'X' most shone.'


6) Conclusion: Say you liked it, could live with it even, suggest it is a bit of a bargain (even if it is £100K), suggest the reader gets a demo (if they can get you on the forecourt they can flog you something at least, even if it's only a new TT mat or a mains cable) and then give it at least 4 stars/globes/onions.


Nowt to it lads - £300 for an hour's work (a bit longer if you actually do listen to it of course but then you were probably going to listen to music anyway at some point so you can't really count that). That's more than Rudy earns. Job's a good 'un.

Macca, good template! :-D (Tho I haven’t read a magazine for a while.)

Re the absence of bad reviews, I assume that in most cases if a reviewer can’t write a positive review about a product (for whatever reason), then no review is written.
If that’s the case it’s a pretty big flaw.

Also I imagine that the magazines are propped up by their advertising revenue, and so by the sponsors who place those ads. Sponsors whose products are the very subjects of the reviews. Hardly a recipe for impartiality. Unconscious bias in hifi opinions and editorial decisions might occur for a range of subtle reasons (packaging, bling factor, previous personal buying choices and brand loyalty). Add in the existential threat that might result from biting the hand that feeds you, and it would be surprising if one’s expressed views were not corrupted to some degree.

back handers plain and simple..back in the day i remember buying a mission cyrus 2 ok..was never happy with it..then loaned a battleship akia amp from a dealer..wow it was amazing..ofc i never swapped over because the akia was not rated.
strange how many of us thought back then aye?
some rated kit was ok though..audiolab 8000a for one..loved those amps..build quality was amazing aswell..all for about 300 quid if i remember rightly

With 6 Moons you have to pay them to review your product so I suppose they feel obliged to waffle on for pages.

Most mags say they never review poor product, just send it back. Which sort of make sense but this is supposed to be subjective reviewing so how come you never see a review that says they didn't like it? Not that it was poor, just not to their taste? I mean I'm not keen on EAR but it isn't a bad product it's just I don't like that presentation, all creamy and soft.


I wouldn't say there have never been any backhanders for reviewers but I don't think it happens often. Usually it's enough that the reviewer knows the manufacturer, or the importer or whatever. Gets a tour, gets taken for lunch, gets friendly with the people behind the product. That makes it much harder for him to say anything negative when he goes back to write the review, simple human nature. The mags support the manufacturer and the manufacturer supports the mags. Print or on-line, makes no difference.

But FFS Dave look at the price of mags nowadays.
£5 or £6 bloody hell.

Thanks guys for your valuable insights.

Up until recently I was a reviewer and certainly never once offered any back handers at all, in fact I was paid SFA which is why I packed it in. I now have my own online magazine but taking a break before seriously starting again.

As for writing negative reviews, I simply couldn't see the worth in wasting my time writing such a review when in reality there is so much good kit out there waiting in a queue. I did criticise some big name gear and surprise, surprise they never asked me to do another one. I said the speaker binding posts on the Cyrus One were hopelessly inadequate and I was shocked by the reaction it caused on Facebook. I refused to review some Wharfedale speakers and boy did get some heavy flak over that, but I would rather do that than steer prospective buyers towards auditioning such products.

On the flip side of that, if any product fell short of my standards I discussed it with the manufacturers, many of whom actually took notice of my findings and took remedial steps.

What truly pissed me off persoanlly was the british obsession with home grown products such as KEF, B&W, Musical Fidelity, etc., but there is a treasure trove of absolutely superb products originating from europe with unfamiliar names that simply pisses all over the home grown gear easily. Poland in particular has a thriving hi-fi industry and produces great gear at sensible prices. A case in point is my Quadral speakers which I doubt any UK speaker can get even close to and I am not exaggerating at all. What a huge shame that people don't take any heed when someone bothers to point them in the right direction.

maybe it was different 20 years ago..all we had then was mags.

hifi review was my favourite..i used to buy them all every month..had about 500 mags up untill 2000..used to read them from cover to cover

the net has killed magazines full stop imho
years ago shops had walls of magazines..nowadays almost nothing..everything is on the net now.
you want to find out about anything nowadays u google..made life so easy for all of us..best deals and best products.
i prefer to listen to normal folks tales than reviews..

Reviewing styles can vary but some things irritate me personally.

1. Reviews written in the present tense. David Price seems to have started this and it’s spread. To me it was done for effect and it grates badly. It also suggests to me that he is sharing his entire (brief) review experience. If all he’s done is listened to 3 or 4 recordings, it doesn’t suggest any length of time has been spent with the gear.
2. Music based reviews where the description of the tracks, album, artist, producer, label and issue take up a paragraph each time. I’m simply not interested. To me it’s a lazy way to fill space. I want to know what sonic traits the item being reviewed has. I’m expecting the reviewer to do the hard work and listen to lots of recordings before outlining any tendencies in the review. A small example or two using a recording is fine, but I don’t accept the premise that a review should be all about the music. At best, it’s only one way, not THE way.
3. Comparative reviews that don’t go beyond the comparison. I’m not a fan of AB comparison because it tends to accentuate differences and has often led me to choose something I haven’t enjoyed in. It’s own terms. All a comparative review will tell you I shown something compared to something else. Fine if you own the other component and are considering switching, but how likely is that?

All of these are my opinion and nothing else. I’m not prescribing to anyone, just saying what turns me off and why. As with hifi, it’s all subjective AFAIC.

I agree, The Hi-fi Choice group tests were always illuminating, especially the blind listening sessions. No wonder they stopped doing them.

How do we define a "bad review"?

The one important thing that I have learned as a reviewer is that what I would class as bad sounding would probably thrill to bits someone else with different listening tastes and what may please or displease me personally, could and most likely is, at complete variance with other people's listening preferences. My "detailed" is someone else's "too bright" and my take on "woolly bass" may be most people's idea of "perfect bass". If you go to any hi-fi show and spend some time listening to the private comments what people say about what they have just heard. It is a real eye opener.

There are no absolutes whatsoever in the world of hi-fi and those of you that are too quick to criticise should give it a go yourselves and discover just how difficult a job it is, especially translating what you are hearing and pairing it up with an inadequate language palette so you do far too much repetition and wear thin the usual cliches.

Yes but it's not a real job is it...!!! (Hifi Reviewer)

I mean I wanted to be a Wizard when I left school, but the folk at the job centre just laughed.😂

That was the advantage of the old HiFi Choice approach; you had several opinions rather than just one, so it was possible to get some idea of what a consensus might be about a particular piece of equipment. HiFi+ tried it once in a comparative review of cables; unfortunately one of the panel preferred the cheapest cable, which was not a good result, so they never repeated the experiment.

I reckon I could knock up a hifi review in half an hour or so, given the manufacturer's press release. It's not like anyone could 'challenge' my findings, as they would just be my own subjective opinion. As long as I added sufficient caveats about 'of course, in a different room or system, it might work better/worse/not at all', there'd be no problem. Ian Rankin famously reviewed some Exposure amps without even taking them out of the box!